RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17

"Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com> Fri, 18 April 2014 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <nobo@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E931A0247; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-EJv6ivQlcP; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A341A0242; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2257; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397785302; x=1398994902; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=b6TQy5UOH1kB4k7F1+x4znplvvUu1wHmVZ+W4zYEsxw=; b=M8na4kgIknpOEp3py/dhLy0NcS3l1vNngH03Atc3rd55Iv16wtgmYHz3 Ud0a/RQCmoBIDwIBRu0d4r1kYtDor0SUJRTUIN7Hq7j4TEu2JoZOlxgi0 HGup9gX6YQLHIAeoX0yalPSHJcdkXRUFsoW9DeEOh9EHWS52M9KfOZRL0 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAASCUFOtJA2M/2dsb2JhbABZgmUhgRLDaIEjFnSCJQEBAQMBOj8MBAIBCA4DBAEBAQoUCQcyFAkIAQEEDgUIh2wIAcwjF44xMQcGgx6BFAEDqzuDMYIr
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,882,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="36817188"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2014 01:41:41 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3I1ffI5020901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Apr 2014 01:41:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 20:41:40 -0500
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
Thread-Index: Ac9Zy+Zk0qHspTLsTUq2+7kL82/PpAAiJosQABf5+IAAA1d10A==
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 01:41:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941E10BDEA@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C2EC24D@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941E10B9F3@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <20140417221511.GC29430@pfrc>
In-Reply-To: <20140417221511.GC29430@pfrc>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V5STtnrmMWxZQWrGRJ8JMXHD0eU
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com>, "General Area Review Team \(gen-art@ietf.org\)" <gen-art@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 01:41:49 -0000

Hi Jeff,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:15 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
> Cc: Black, David; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Zafar Ali (zali); General Area
> Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org); rtg-bfd@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17
> 
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:18:28PM +0000, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote:
> > > I did not see a compliance requirement for a system that only
> > > implements BFD protocol version 0.  That absence should at least be
> > > mentioned somewhere.  For example, if this reflects a considered and
> > > deliberate decision by the WG, that should be mentioned in the
> introduction.
> >
> > Good point. If I remember correctly, BFD version 0 had a problem in the
> state machine that can cause the two ends to fall into a deadlock. It would
> be, therefore, very bad for anybody to have BFD version 0 deployed out
> there, and asking for any MIB compliance requirement for such. Consensus
> on absence of compliance requirement for BFD version 0 was never polled
> in the WG, but I can say that there shouldn't be any desire for that.
> 
> With respect to v0 vs. v1 from a MIB perspective, the only user-visible detail
> was the additional state in the state machine.  That means that the MIB in its
> current form should be able to accommodate bfd v0.
> 
> This does suggest, however, that the TC mib could use a comment in the
> DESCRIPTION toward the point that failing(5) is only valid for BFD v0.

Agree, and it's already there :)

[snip]
    IANAbfdSessStateTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS         current
    DESCRIPTION
        "BFD session state. State failing(5) is only applicable if
         corresponding session is running in BFD version 0."
[snip]

-Nobo

> 
> A conformance clause indicating that those so foolish as to deploy BFD v0
> would better be served by the determinism of a five-year-old child flipping
> a coin is probably out of scope for the draft.  But if someone has sufficiently
> proscriptive text to add to say "don't do bfd v0" that is acceptable to the
> reviewers, I'm fine with that.
> 
> -- Jeff